abandonment and essentially if you are vacant for more than three years you can be considered abandoned in terms of the use, so specifically yeah you can have turnover and tenants for some amount of time. it doesn't have to be the same tenant forever for legal non conforming use but at some point it's abandoned, or if the owners of that building put in a different use, put in a restaurant and later wanted to go back to a night time entertainment use they wouldn't be able to do that. if you have a legal non conforming use you need to keep it in operation without abandonment. >> so slims could close and come back as something different and allow to do that? >> yes. paradise was only paradise lounge for only so long. i can't remember what was there before that but it wasn't

that long it was something different. >> right. and under the proposals an entertainment use is proposed and allowed is there a cu for that or under the other options and entertainment use and allow -- >> under those options we're basically taking the sally zoning or the wmou zoning and extending it there and the districts south of harrison the idea is it would be opened up for night time entertainment use and unless we specifically made it conditional use on that corridor and for implementation purposes could be tricky, but as the options are before you it's permitted as a right. >> okay. i don't mind housing and maybe it's housing in these adjacency areas too and to approve with certain conditions like better sound proofing that could allow it to happen. i am

concerned about the others and two and three and have the entire corridor to be night time entertainment with the other spaces. that would happen and have this one block concentration of entertainment uses, so i don't mind 2a and 2b, but i would at least like to see if it's expanded beyond the current uses and maybe cu and something now a restaurant within that district becomes an entertainment use. that's not done as of right but as a cu process but the one are there grand forthed in -- >> intl something along those lines. >> i would offer a few comments and i am confused by the optionses and i get the tone there is restrictive compared to other plans that we looked at. i

think mr. meeko pointed out why clubs move to the area and my recollection in the 80's there were few residents there and body shops and pdr and there were people living there but you were there as well and that's why larger clubs and footprints ended up there, so whatever this turns into, it evolves into i think we should set it up so there is a little little flexibility, room for creativity, entrepreneurship. this plan is prescriptive. i'm not sure it allows for that or not but i'm looking forward to learning more and hearing more. commissioner borden. >> i think i kind of agree with what commissioner wu said -- 3b, i was looking at that and i do believe every week almost with

restaurants that have music that people consider too loud, issues in the corridor and people complaint about restaurant usage and don't necessarily have amplified music and sound and i know there is a challenge of having more lively restaurants sometimes in neighborhood commercial corridors. i personally don't like when too many things are legal non conforping. i think we always see that as a challenge in the code. if there is a preponderance of use in a area and ideally like the part of the plan and what is the existing and that is my rational for favoring something like 3b. the other thing i do believe that office is more compatible use with the night time use and day time use and you can have night time use and create other sources of income and revenue for those buildings or property owners so that the two uses

could co-exist and i know entertainment has the peaks and valleys for the financial success for them and having other options in the neighborhood would be worth while as well, and i think it would encourage restaurants and other uses, not just night life to be in the neighborhood. maybe a restaurant that has live entertainment. i do have a couple questions -- i saw -- you mentioned about no vertical architecture elements. i just wanted to understand what is the rational behind that? >> sure. so there were a number of design components as part of the neighborhoods that were codified, and one of those things tended to be, and if you look at the urban form elements of the area plans and mission and soma there is a emphasis on

emphasizing the corners and through the community process and especially the people on the task force focused more on design didn't necessarily favor that course, and even though in eastern neighborhoods you have a large project you can propose one vertical architectural element and it can be fairly high and not inhabitant and just a design feature. most times it's proposed or comes forward it's at a corner and there is that tie in there and just as a design feature. it's not something the task force felt they wanted in western soma. >> i don't have a huge opinion about it but i was wondering -- particularly with larger lots and harrison street it's appropriate. if folsom wasn't going to be two way it might be

appropriate. again i don't have any strong feelings. i just wanted to understand that. the other thing you have no bonuses for making open space publicly accessible and i wanted to understand the rational behind that and that might discourage developers from creating open spaces that are publicly accessible. >> sure. this is a common situation where you have competing goals. in western soma there is not a lot of open space and in eastern neighborhoods are you provided to require 80 square feet whether private decks or common courtyards but publicly soabl it's 54 and provide half so you could provide less open space in exchange for making it publicly accessible. in this situation it was determined publicly

accessible is good if that is enough of an incentive they don't want 50% of the open space reduced by a third. they want to generate as much open space as possible and that is obviously an issue in western soma. >> again if we could figure out a way to make it you reach both goals so maybe not do the reduction like eastern neighborhoods but there is some incentive to do more publicly accessible space. i would hate for people to design -- there is motivation and i don't know what it is that is a nexus on what we're trying to accomplish. another question is about notification of the i know the task force met and i have been on the email notice for the entire time i get the notices and canceled or going on and i know in eastern neighborhoods even at the end there were

people all of a sudden the rezoning process was happening and to their lots. when do or -- since the in factiation and people in the area, property owners gotten notice about the rezoning? >> so there are two parts to that. the notices are in the process of going out in terms of mail and newspaper notices for the adoption hearing and go to all the of the property owners and within 300 feet of the boundaries. other meetings like today are done more informally through the task force and not so much pliew the planning department so you can ask mr. meeko if you want to expand on that. >> i just want notice -- and

there are areas where office buildings and sally and just the way the zoning happens to be right now. if people are in a position it's going to be legal non conforming is there any notice they get that lets them know that? >> there is not a special notice for that. a lot of situations in this are already legal non conforming uses and in the night time entertainment they are and they're not permitted and office in the area and it's not permitted anywhere in western soma and those two uses and everybody that exists, everybody that is legal and exists are probably non conforming uses. in terms of creating new non conforming uses there is none of that but a good one is the

creation of pdr in bay view as well as other examples. >> i think the notice is just important because we get people at the last minute that who didn't realize this was going on because they didn't get a legal notice and people don't see things until they're in front of their faces anyway, and i guess the other question about the notification. okay. now you're going to have legal non conforming uses and some knew that but they were allowed to exist. is there like the eastern neighborhoods some amnecessity or process by which you are doing letters of determination? what is the process if you're existing legal non conforping office use and now we're going to be zoning you in the sallies and making you permanently non conforming what do -- say they want add more

office space what do they do? >> sure. anybody already a legal non conforming use and remain that way things basically stay the same. they can't expand today or tomorrow and maybe a little with a conditional use but can't add new use and it's funny you mentionedda that r the amesty program and it was extended and tuesday was the last day and what is front you there is no program like that proposed and no specific pipeline for grandfathered projects either eastern neighborhoods included. >> correct me if i am wrong and that was for buildings that didn't have permits. it's a different situation. >> that's true. >> they can legally proceed. >> yes. that means they got the legal approvals at the time they went in and the zoning changed

after the fact that made them no longer legal and the legitimate program and programs that could have gotten the approval you but didn't get them or maybe didn't pay the impact fees and couldn't legalize under the zoning and maybe went to another one and office was not permitted and gave them an opportunity when originally going in -- >> like the areas with the old sli was more vague. it was fairly permissive if i remember correctly than the sally was? no? >> not really. in terms of offices and housing under the sli there are two small ways to get that so for housing only if 100% affordable housing and for the other one is work space for

design professionals and narrow and have to be on the third floor or above and certain feet and it's prescriptive and i don't know anyone that took advantage of it. >> i am just wondering and i know there are offices -- >> yeah and some went in before and some did not. >> and in the case of this gentleman talking about his housing project since he filed the application previously how is that treated? does he pay a fee? i mean is that grandfathered in? >> generally if there is no grandfathered provision added it's subject to the law when

gets required entitlement or when it's issued and we will look into that specifically more but if they have it and not issued -- if it got rezoned and theoretically couldn't move forward unless the grandfatherrerring was in place. >> i guess in context and mentioned it and in the context of 11th street and maybe you could discuss options with 11th street and how that would work and in terms of what is actually out there, in terms of what people are proposing. that would be useful. thanks. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you and talk about this 11th street corridor and i earlier stated my preference for what i believe is wmuo which is

option 3b and one of the reasons it would also allow office and presumably allow retail in that area which contributes to day time uses that would help the vitality of the area because if you have a lot of entertainment uses typically clubs they don't come into play until late at night and allowing some office and retail and day time commercial things would keep the district moving throughout the day too. we had a discussion while we were having a break there on the gas lamp in san diego and -- i'm not trying to hint this is what we're looking to create here but they do have an area where a concentration of dining establishments and some clubs are easily walkable because you often have to be cabbing from one part of san

francisco to another to go to different scplais and we have a lot of walkable areas and like san diego there are few walkable areas and why it's concentrated there. the other question i had and somebody brought this up. is there any call for metering and housing? i think we may have asked that last week and i was assured there wasn't but somebody brought that up. >> in the plan, in the area plan that would be adopted in the general plan there is a policy that says that we should establish a community stabilization policy that attempts -- i am paraphrasing and affordable housing afford and jobs and it's about that balance. separate from the plan the task force adopted a specific policy and mechanisms how you would achieve that goal

and that included what people call metering which is essentially -- if the area fell out of balance then market rate housing is held up until that balance is restored either through publicly developed affordable housing or higher amounts of affordable housing in the private projects. that specific policy is not part of the planning code amendments that are in front of you now. that is pulled out separate and that whole issue of metering and how to implement such a policy will be trailing legislation. >> yeah, that's the other problem we may pass something that sounds reasonable as you described and then gets in the hands of the supervisors and somebody decides with trailing legislation and happened with market octavia and other plans and even rincon hill changed from the time we approved it

and in my estimation less desirable and i guess we can't control that but get it out to the public and there is treatment of certain housing and i don't think we should be in doing. >> just to be clear. the plan is there was separate legislation on the policy that includes metering and as separate legislation that comes back in front of the planning commission. >> good. >> commissioner moore. >> i think it's very important that we talk about the 11th street corridor. i just want to make sure we spend equal time talking about the benefit of the plan which we haven't much talked about. from this anything goes i don't care where it is south of market a few years ago. these are 14 residential enclaves we're trying to pull together as a neighborhood and that is

implied in the western soma area plan with attempt to create a main street that focused on folsom street and attempt to bring neighborhood commercial and other mix of uses rather than mixed use and that is a big distinction in planning language. i think there is variety for many. i would be amiss to say i don't want to just shift the emphasis on talking about the 11 eth corridor but we are well advised and one thing the plan needs from us opportunitys are focused on the parts of the plan which are the most transformative part locationally and that is finding uses that kind of are build and realized within the heart of the community and spin off effect of new facilities be commercial,

be community serving or whatever they maybe, or open space and street improvements benefit everybody. you have a rather large area and 14 residential enclaves and i counted them quickly and perhaps 15 that are quite far apart so to create synergy and support in a area and little islands floating in an area of others i think we need to support the formation and kind of ground breaks pieces for the neighborhood and i am prepared to discuss the issues of the 11th street corridor but i hope the commission focuses the parts of the plan in front of us. i think the plan is strong. i think mr. teague is doing a phenomenal job of carrying it forward for someone who worked on it before and i

feel really good about how the department is handling it, and i would hope that we can spread our attention far and wide enough to look at the whole piece. >> if that's all commissioners we can conclude that item and move on to item 13. 340 fremont street under planning code sections for the theoriesation of change in conditions of approval. be presented by cory teague. >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners. cory teague staff. this is a request for

extension for 340 fremont street which you heard informational update earlier today. the planning commission approved this project in june 2006 to demolish the existing buildings and develop 400-foot tall building, 290,000 square feet and 332 dwelling units and parking spaces. no changes are proposed to the original project as it was originally approved other than the erks terior design changes and other minor alterations that were presented to you earlier today. there were multiple extensions granted in the past and rincon hill it was required to come back every year and they're back before you again for another extension and in regards to public comment the department did receive one

letter of opposition from a neighbor that did not support the extension. it is important to know that the project sponsors have a permit on file and recently filed in august revisions to that permit to match the design that you saw earlier, and those permits are currently under review by the planning department. in order for the project to proceed the commission must grant the extension request for another 12 months after the day of the expiration of the last project approval. that would put the next date november 13, 2013. this project does comply with all of the requirements of planning code and the general plan. it is consistent with rincon hill plan and provide significant number of dwelling units to the city and the building permits are up-to-date

and under review and the department recommends approval of the extension request. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> okay. good afternoon president fong and planning commissioners. i am ezra mercy and representing jackson pacific and art stone who collectively are the sponsor and developer for 340 fremont street. as mr. teague mentioned 340 fremont is approved residential project consisting of 348 apartments and 269 parking spaces and code complying 400-foot tower. there is no change in ownership. the same sponsor remains in place and we look forward to going forward with construction next

year and we our 2005 site ap was supplemented in august and provide the documents for construction. we demonstrate our commitment to the plan and we look forward to a groundbreaking next year. the rincon plan adopted in 2006 will transform the area into a mix use downtown neighborhood with significant housing presence and provide range of services and amenities that support urban living and set the stage for rincon hill to be home to 10,000 resident s. the plan shows why it's a high priority site and containing large parcels that could accommodate significant high density housing. another factor is the proximity to

transit and a neighborhood within five minutes of the downtown financial district and access to public and regional transit and finally major changes in the downtown landscape ranging from the removal of the embarcadero freeway and the anticipated compleeg of the trans bay terminal combine to make the vision even more compelling. through the course of 2005-2006 and 2007 we completed significant planning work and the approval process represented approximately 24 months of effort by our team working closely with planning staff. by late 2007 the sponsor had invested over $4 million in soft costs plus land acquisition of $18.5 million various other holding costs. like many other projects around the city the sharp economic downturn forced our project to be put on hold.

however as we reported to you last year the rental apartment market has recovered sufficient strength to allow this project to move forward. during 2012 we made substantial investment in order to finalize the design and documents so it's ready for construction. we have enhanced building design and excited to see realized and as we speak construction documents move forward for estimated mid-2013 groundbreaking. the construction will make a significant contribution to the housing stock of san francisco, a major investment in the local economic recovery, and the substantial expansion of the new job creation within the city. art stone and jackson pacific are excited to be part of this new neighborhood and in conclusion we are requesting

that the planning commission grant 340 fremont the one year approval extension. we look forward to construction starting in 2013. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none commissioner moore. >> mr. teague, i have a question. assuming that the commission is considering extension wouldn't the number of dwelling units be changed to 348 and parking to 269 to match what was presented today? >> that's a good question. the extension is proposed for the project as approved. every project that is approved has condition of approval that basically says major changes can